Chapter 17 Presentation 4/7/2021 (+ Introduction to Debate)

By: Gabrielle Hanna & Ronald Huang — Period 9 Public Speaking
Date: 4/7/2021 (Published 4/10/2021)
Topic(s): Chapter 17 Presentation 4/7/2021 (+ Introduction to Debate)
Labels: Chapter Presentation; Debates (minor)

(*Note: Both bloggers' class notes can be found at the end of this post.)

Debates:

The debate unit will incorporate planned debates in which 6 students will cover each topic: three will argue the affirmative, and three the negative. From each team, one person will be responsible for the introductory speech, and the other two will follow up; furthermore, each team will be answering questions from the audience regarding their stance on the topic of discussion. Moreover, the class will get to participate in impromptu debates, so we can practice our skills with other students and get a glimpse of what the formal debates will look like.

Chapter 17 Presentation:

Mrs. Sanguinedo covered the various methods of persuasion that make for a convincing and credible argument, which include:

Establishing/Enhancing Credibility: One usually starts by explaining their competence or telling the audience why they’re a reliable speaker (e.g. a doctor giving a speech on cancer research starts by mentioning their credentials, where they graduated from, etc). A speaker should also find common ground with their audience so they appear more relatable and relevant. Finally, the speaker should also use various modes of appropriate expression (e.g. changes in tone and body language) so the audience is more interested in their message. If someone stands as still as a statue and uses a monotone voice, the audience will tune out very quickly.

Using Evidence: Every argument is better fortified with supporting materials that help prove or disprove the topic of debate (depending on one’s stance). This can include a variety of media like websites, books, research papers, etc. When choosing what to use, a speaker should look for media specific to their topic (e.g. if you’re arguing why LeBron James is the best basketball player, sources that discuss basketball in general don’t help much).  Moreover, an argument is better supported with evidence that’s novel in two ways: published/released recently (last few years), and includes information that most people haven’t heard before (which listeners will likely find more fascinating). Evidence should also be credible; for example, government websites are among the most reliable sources (e.g. cdc.gov). Finally, using statistics and visuals such as graphs can help put the evidence into perspective. See this video for an example (Mrs. Sanguinedo, Methods of Persuasion, Slide 7).

Types of Reasoning: A speaker can draw conclusions in support of their argument based on the evidence they present. The four types include specific instances, principle, causal, and analogical reasoning. Using statistics is best for discussing specific instances; however, speakers should try to avoid making hasty generalizations (a type of fallacy) based on only a few anecdotes, as there could be much more evidence that says otherwise. With reasoning from principle, a speaker draws a specific conclusion from a general and popular premise. Minor premises can also be included so long as they’re proven true/false with proper evidence. Example: The major premise is that all people are mortal. The minor premise is that Socrates is a person. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Mrs. Sanguinedo, Methods of Persuasion, Slide 13). In causal reasoning, a speaker establishes a relationship between a cause and effect (e.g. Because I studied for the test, I got a high grade). Here, you need to be careful not to assume the wrong cause or that there’s only one cause (fallacy of false cause). Finally, there’s analogical reasoning, in which the speaker compares two very similar cases. If these cases have major differences, the argument will fall apart (fallacy of invalid analogy). 

Fallacies: Several of the most common fallacies include hasty generalization, false cause, invalid analogy, bandwagon, red herring, ad hominem, either-or, slippery slope, and appeal to tradition or novelty. In hasty generalizations, people jump to conclusions with too little or no evidence. Example: “There are so many bad drivers! Just look at how people drive on Staten Island!” False cause is when someone wrongly assumes a cause-effect relationship just because one thing follows another. Example: “My child was diagnosed with autism after getting vaccinated, which means vaccines cause autism.” Invalid analogy is when a speaker compares cases that aren’t similar (e.g. comparing basketball to swimming). In a bandwagon fallacy, someone assumes that something’s right/wrong just because it’s popular/unpopular respectively (e.g. eliminating taxes because everyone hates paying them). Red herring is when someone diverts from a topic with another irrelevant matter, and ad hominem is attacking somebody instead of addressing a real problem. Both of these fallacies are extremely common in politics. In either-or, someone is forced between two choices where there’s other options available. Example: “You’re either with us or against us!” Slippery slope is assuming one action will lead to other unstoppable consequences. Example: “If I start eating a donut today, I’ll end up eating donuts every day.” Finally, appeal to tradition or novelty is assuming something old is better than new, or vice versa, without sufficient evidence.

Appeals: Another good way to make one’s argument effective is to appeal to emotion, or invoke feelings from the audience such as happiness, sadness, pity, annoyance, etc. To establish this, a speaker uses emotional language and speaks very expressively, and also uses vivid imagery so listeners can visualize what the emotion(s) looks like in action. Example: “The look in a mother’s eyes when she can’t feed her hungry child” (Samantha Booke, The Great Debaters). Additionally, speakers can appeal to their audience via ethics, or morals that conduct one's behavior. Here, the speaker must make a point that's morally acceptable, or their argument will be quickly rejected by listeners.

Gabrielle’s Reflection:

Today’s presentation was a very detailed guide on how we (the students) can make our arguments as convincing as possible, particularly for when it comes time to debate one another. I will admit, when I was listening to this presentation, I felt like I was already familiar with a good amount of the information in it, such as the evidence I should use to back up my claims, ways of establishing and enhancing credibility (e.g. a doctor explaining their credentials), and using emotional appeals to evoke sympathy from the audience and make my argument more interesting. However, I found the fallacy section particularly relieving in the sense that I could finally put a name to some of the faulty arguments I heard many times in the past; it was a bit like finally finding out the name of a popular song I’ve heard before. For example, since I started tuning into politics in the last year, I’ve seen numerous cases of ad hominem, red herring, bandwagon, and either or in political statements and debates, but I never knew the actual terminology for these faulty arguments. I’ve also heard my mom use these fallacies; for instance, whenever I get a bad grade, she assumes I’m lazy or skipping out on my studies (hasty generalization). Or if I did poorly on a test, she’ll assume I didn’t study (false cause), when I could have studied and just found the test difficult. The most recent example I’ve heard from my mom is: if any of my class grades drop below the A- threshold, she’ll complain that it’s only a matter of time before I lose all of my college acceptances and scholarships (slippery slope). I’ve never formally learned about fallacies until this year, but I could make so many more connections to where I’ve heard them in my own life. I’d bet everyone has heard of the Just Because fallacy from their parents at least a few times (does “because I said so” ring a bell?). Moreover, I was also unfamiliar with the names of the credibility types Mrs. Sanguinedo discussed (initial, derived, terminal), but I have seen examples of them before, such as my AP Biology teacher telling her students about her work in forensics in the past, before having us do a lab on DNA fingerprinting (initial). This teacher is also very friendly, eager about teaching biology, and answers questions very clearly, which I think increases her credibility because she leaves a positive impression on me and my classmates. During the debates, I will definitely keep in mind to avoid using fallacies in my argument so my speech is as reliable as can be, and I’ll also try to be mindful of how my audience perceives me in order to enhance my credibility, as these are factors I haven’t considered in past assignments. I’ll definitely follow the guidelines Mrs. Sanguinedo provided me to form a well-structured and convincing argument, as I found them to be very insightful and helpful.

Ronald’s Reflection: —

• • • Blog Notes • • •

Ronald Huang, Period 9
4/7/2021
Today is about chapter presentation

The methods of persuading others

• Building credibility/ethos

• Make others have the perception that the person speaking understands completely what they are talking about and has character.

• Being an expert in the topic makes you more believable.

• Character also makes you more credible, if you have better character people are more likely to listen to you.

• Initial Credibility

• The credibility that the speaker has before the speech, based on things such as reputation

• Derived Credibility

• What the speaker says during the speech to make the audience agree or disagree

• Terminal credibility

• The credibility that he speaker puts on after the speech, the impression that they give you

• Explaining competence

• Being able to explain that you have done the research and that it is something that is factual and should be listened to

• Establish common ground

• Connect with your audience about things that you are talking about

• Speaking expressively

• Speak in an excited, dynamic way and not in a monotone way to engage others

• Speak with confidence so it doesn’t seem as though you’re questioning what you’re saying

• Speaking at a natural, good pace seems as though it is mostly a conversation can help your credibility

• Using evidence

• Put out relevant and specific evidence to prove or disprove something

• Use novel/new evidence

• Talk about things that many people have not heard about and that may be interesting and engaging

• Use credible evidence

• Use evidence that comes from a source that is trusted

• Clear point of evidence

• Make it clear what is being shared

• Make it something that the audience should care about and is close to home

• Reasoning 

• Drawing a conclusion based on evidence, not just stating a conclusion

• Using specific instances

• Do not generalize based on specific instances

• Causal Reasoning

• Assume there are many causes

• Avoid fallacy of false causes

• Analogical Reasoning

• Two similar cases should have the same 

• 
  

• Deductive reasoning

• A

• Inductive reasoning

• A

• Use a major premise that your audience deems true

• 
  

• Appealing to emotion

Hasty Generalizations

• 
  

False Cause 

• 
  

Invalid Analogy

• 
  

Bandwagon

• 
  

Red Herring 

• 
  

Ad Hominem

• 
  

Either-Or

• 
  

Slippery Slope

• 
  

Appeal to Tradition

• 
  

Appeal to Novelty

• 
  

Appealing to Emotion

• 
  

Gabrielle’s Notes:

APRIL 7 BLOG NOTES

+ Debate format (three per team, 6 per topic, 3 pro & 3 con; 1 opening statement, 1 subsequent speech, all 3 answer questions)

+ random impromptu debates incoming for practice (not graded)

+ TAOPS Chapter 17 presentation (will be shared)

- speaker must prove competence as researcher and speaker

- Aaron Rogers more competent because he has insider knowledge ("in ways the average fan cannot see")

- character also comes into question (e.g. if you're charitable vs a criminal)

- credibility (e.g. sources, how you look, tone you use, etc; Ex: page 333)

- enhance by explaining competence (e.g. research), establishing common ground (e.g. shared experiences), be expressive w/ conviction (don't be monotonous, not being excited about own speech = audience tunes out)

- have supporting materials to (dis)prove something

- evidence should be specific, new (recent & uncommon), credible, & make clear point

- draw conclusion based on your evidence (reasoning); be able to prove your point

- Types of Reasoning:

- specific instances (specific to general)

- principle (general to specific)

- causal (cause & effect)

- analogical (compare similar cases)

- avoid hasty generalizations, qualify, reinforce w/ stats & testimony

- principle: use major premise audience will accept & evidence for minor premise

- causal: establish relationship between events (avoid false cause fallacy & don't assume only one cause)

- analogical: compare similar cases (major differences = hole in argument)

- AVOID THESE FALLACIES: ad hominem (common in politics), either or, slippery slope, appeal to tradition/novelty

- use pathos to appeal to audience's emotions

- be ethically appropriate (or your argument may not be accepted)